OJ questions the Double Jeopardy Court System...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by insein, Nov 19, 2005.

  1. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Wow, i agree with OJ. How can both he and Robert Blake be aquitted of murder but then be held liable financially for the deaths?

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DV7TU00.html

    I absolutely agree with OJ here. Whether he did it or not, the prosecutor didnt prove that he did and therfore he was innocent. So how the hell are lawyers allowed to bring a civil trial against them for the same offense? ITs a fucked up way to punish someone who was not found guilty and an easy way for lawyers to make more money.
     
  2. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    I understand your point….But

    Two standards, two different potential punishments, that’s how I see it.

    One is criminal, ya may get death so the standard of proof is high..
    The second civil, a big fine so the standard is less. (Should be the same IMO).

    Now if you were to try a “suspect” which would you go for?
    You know he/she is guilty and can prove it. Do you go for a fine or the big banana?

    Now, if you fail someone else can always take a bite out of their ass in civil court.
    Keys here IMO, are “criminal” and “civil”.

    Also, note there is a difference in charges. Murder for criminal maybe wrongful death for civil, not murder for both as far as I know. This alone makes TWO separate charges; therefore it can not be double jeopardy IMO.

    I’m not a Lawyer, but I play one on TV.
     
  3. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    I'm pretty sure that OJ dun it.
    I'm pretty sure that Baretta dun it too.

    But, they dun it good nuf dat duh crimnal trial said they wuz not guilty.

    The civil trial only took place because they each have huge earning potential. If it was me, with no fundage, no civil trial.

    This is just one more reason to allow lie detectore, drugs, etc. during investigations and push for the development of a truth machine to use in court.
     
  4. Abbey Normal
    Offline

    Abbey Normal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    4,825
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic region
    Ratings:
    +391
    Yes, the difference in the standard of proof in criminal vs. civil trials is key to the different outcomes. But, more importantly, as in OJ's case we have two separate systems to deal with different claims: a murder trial is brought by the State, in the interest of public justice, while a Wrongful Death suit (a tort) is brought by the victim's family.

    OJ should shut his guilty trap and just be thankful he got away with it.
     
  5. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    The fact that a man can be aquitted of murder but liable for wrongful death disturbs me. It just seems to be a clever loophole for lawyers to get another shot at a guy.

    I trust lawyers even less than i can throw them. Its not all of them, just 99% of them that are fucking up this country.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    They're working within the system insein. There's nothing wrong with that.
     
  7. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    IN this instance the system is AFU. We need to fix it as quickly as MS fixes bugs.
     
  8. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    That was my back-handed point..It's not the Lawyers it's the system.
     
  9. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Lawyers built the system to serve their purposes.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Abbey Normal
    Offline

    Abbey Normal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    4,825
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic region
    Ratings:
    +391
    In a civilized society, a private individual cannot decide who to prosecute someone for a crime, nor can they bring the charges. That is done by the State or Federal Gov't., not the family of a victim. If you change that, you will have chaos. Just because some stupid or star-struck jury fell prey to a defense attorney's shenanigans at the criminal trial, there should be no recourse for the family? Why shouldn't they have the right to sue for the loss of their loved one (and possibly the breadwinner) at the hands of a murderer?

    If there is a problem here, it is with half-wit juries and slimy defense lawyers, not with the right to a civil trial by family members of the victim. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone would begrudge them that right.
     

Share This Page